New Atomic Clock 1000 Times More Accurate

stevelinton writes "The UK National Physical Laboratory has a new atomic clock potentially 1000 times more accurate than current cesium clocks: to within 1 second in about 30 billion years! This could lead quite soon to a new definition of the second, and in a while to improved resolution in GPS successor systems. More interestingly, there are theories that some of the universe's fundamental dimensionless constants may have changed by a parts in a million over the last 10 billion years or so. These clocks are so accurate that they should be able to detect these changes over a year or two."

Comments

I'll alert Britannica...

[grub]

This could lead quite soon to a new definition of the second

Now all we need is a13 year old to update the wikipedia entry.

Re:I'll alert Britannica...

[bstadil]

Now all we need is a13 year old to update the wikipedia entry

Hey! Wait a secon........never mind

Yes, but...

[untaken_name]

...what if someone forgets to wind it?

Great!

[nixdorf_]

My boss will now know with 1000x the accuracy exactly how late I am. Wonderful!

running late!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a billionth of a second late honey!

Re:running late!

[thepoch]

You must be female. I hear it the other way...

"You're a billionth of a second late! Hmph!"

Damn clocks.

it even...

[enrico_suave]

glows in the dark too!

oh i'm kidding, c'mon =)

e.

Re:Great!

[Orgazmus]

Hehehehehe. *giggles*
You said time, man!

Give or take a year...

[CleverNickedName]

More interestingly, there are theories that some of the universe's fundamental dimensionless constants may have changed by a parts in a million over the last 10 billion years or so. These clocks are so accurate that they should be able to detect these changes over a year or two.

Exactly how long will it take to detect these changes?

Atomic wristwatch?

[cortana]

Call me back when there's a portable version available.

Like Henry Ford said when visiting a museum

[melted]

of clocks: "I see no progress in this industry. These clocks are no faster than the ones they made a hundred years ago."

That's nice but...

[ZoneGray]

That's all well and good, but I'll bet it still flashes "12:00-12:00-12:00" after the power goes off.

Re:Accurate distance too?

[bobdotorg]

it should be possible to measure a metre very exactly.

Ah - but I suspect that measurement of what comprises six inches will be as imprecise and inaccurate as it's always been.

Spring forward, Fall back

[AndroidCat]

Remember folks, turn your fine-structure constant ahead tonight before going to bed.

damn whippersnappers

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first started timing things we used plain 'ol rubidium clocks..and WE LIKED IT!!

Re:Second Minute

[kingkade]

Thank you for the answer to a question no one asked.

Awesome

[roman_mir]

But the real question is can MS make a download status bar that is 1000 times more precise and does not go from 2 minutes to 20, then to 4 minutes, then to 5 minutes etc. Or this invention does not affect a standard Microsoft Millisecond (which I believe is a random function?)

Re:fundamental constants?

[Stevyn]

so I guess seconds should be represented as floats instead of ints?

WTF?

[commodoresloat]

Man that shit is complicated. No wonder we Americans never adopted the metric system. If I want to measure a yard, I don't need no fancy lasers. Just a yardstick!!

I have an even more accurate clock..

[adeyadey]

..in my bedroom. It has stopped, and shows *exactly* the right time twice a day.

This "accurate" clock you describe is only exactly right every few billion years..

Re:Accurate distance too?

[SpaceLifeForm]

That can't be accurate. I'm sure that 1 nanosecond is 8 inches. The ladies say it's less however.